Congress Passes Bill Extending Definition of Child Pornography

By John SchwartzThe Washington PostWASHINGTON

A new law included in the omnibus spending bill in the final days of the
congressional session extends the definition of child pornography to
include images that do not involve children at all, including movies that
use adult actors to portray minors and even images created on
computers.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 has caused a furor among
civil libertarians and constitutional law professors, many of whom sharply
criticized the bill when it was first proposed by its sponsor, Sen. Orrin
G. Hatch, R-Utah. The law took effect Monday when President Clinton signed
the omnibus spending bill.

The new law outlaws "any visual depiction, including any photograph,
film, video image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The law lengthens maximum sentences
for child sexual exploitation and child pornography, with penalties ranging
from five to 30 years in prison.

As far as could be determined Thursday, no cases of the type of
computer-generated child pornography described in the bill have been
reported. However, advances in digital alteration of photography make the
creation of such images possible.

"While federal law has failed to keep pace with technology, the
purveyors of child pornography have been right on line with it," Hatch said
in a statement.

Critics of the law said it would allow prosecution of legitimate works,
potentially including such films as "Kids," and could cause a chilling
effect on future productions based on such works as Vladimir Nabokov's
"Lolita."

The bill also creates an exception to laws restricting newsroom
searches. It would allow such searches in cases involving child
pornography.

Though lawmakers are trying to protect children from the evils of child
pornography, "what they're going to do is sweep up a great deal of
constitutionally protected activity," said Daniel E. Katz, legislative
counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Neither obscenity nor child pornography are protected by the First
Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The legal definition of child
pornography, however, is broader than the legal definition of obscenity
because of the need to protect children from the exploitation and abuse
that making child pornography entails. Child pornography has been defined
to include "actual or simulated" sexual acts and "lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area" by minors.

In prior child pornography cases, the Supreme Court stated that
filmmakers could still use adults pretending to be minors in order to avoid
exploiting children and breaking the law. But that course of action is
expressly banned under the new law.